|
Post by af18c on Jan 9, 2004 21:07:10 GMT -5
I was curious the percentile of the length of all of our personal charts.
Mine's a top 30.
|
|
|
Post by FreakyFlyBry on Jan 9, 2004 21:50:22 GMT -5
I have a top 100.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2004 21:51:42 GMT -5
I started out Top 20, then Top 40, and for the past two years, I've had a Top 50.
|
|
prenatt1166
Platinum Member
Joined: January 2004
Posts: 1,601
|
Post by prenatt1166 on Jan 9, 2004 21:58:56 GMT -5
Between 1976 and 1977, my chart ran 10 positions. At the beginning of 1978 it was expanded to 40 spots. I use January 7, 1978 as my "official" first chart. For a brief time in 1980 it was 100 positions.
|
|
mst3k
New Member
Peese shut mouf.
Back from a 12 year hiatus.
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 345
|
Post by mst3k on Jan 9, 2004 22:20:09 GMT -5
Top fitty.
|
|
jond7699
8x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 8,306
|
Post by jond7699 on Jan 9, 2004 22:30:41 GMT -5
My chart has been 40 postions for the whole 14 years. It is only now that I am thinking about expanding
|
|
|
Post by wojteks on Jan 9, 2004 23:35:20 GMT -5
Mine's top 30
|
|
j
4x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 4,975
|
Post by j on Jan 10, 2004 0:20:51 GMT -5
10 inches.
I swear - that's the amount of space it takes up on a page. :)
|
|
iceman
2x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 2,213
|
Post by iceman on Jan 10, 2004 2:23:59 GMT -5
Mine started as a top 5 from 1994 to 1997. I then expanded to a top 30, tried a top 50 for a couple of months in 1999 then went to a top 40 which I have been doing (for the most part) since.
|
|
Matt4319
Administrator
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 15,215
Staff
|
Post by Matt4319 on Jan 10, 2004 3:01:33 GMT -5
Top 50 since the beginning of my chart in January 2001. Off and on starting in 2002 I expanded to 67, 75, or 100 positions. I'm currently at 100, but officially it's a top 50.
|
|
BlahBlahBlah
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 1,964
|
Post by BlahBlahBlah on Jan 10, 2004 7:51:06 GMT -5
Top 40 and I'm not changing it because I don't like inconsistency.
I still don't think anyone can maintain an accurate Top 100 chart filled with songs they actually like.
|
|
strong4PMB!
Diamond Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 17,394
|
Post by strong4PMB! on Jan 10, 2004 9:30:24 GMT -5
Top 60 and I won't change it, unless I shorten it. But it has been a good number for the past seven-or-so months.
Someone on another message board has a top 150...or 200. I don't see how anyone can listen to or watch the music videos to all those songs within a week.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2004 9:31:30 GMT -5
Top 60 and I won't change it, unless I shorten it. But it has been a good number for the past seven-or-so months. Someone on another message board has a top 150...or 200. I don't see how anyone can listen to or watch the music videos to all those songs within a week. Someone here has a Top 250 or something. I have no clue how you can like that many recent singles.
|
|
Diablo Codyβ’
Diamond Member
without me, you're nothing.
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 10,350
|
Post by Diablo Codyβ’ on Jan 10, 2004 10:22:59 GMT -5
Mine is a top 50.
|
|
|
Post by Eyeball on Jan 10, 2004 13:06:12 GMT -5
I have a Top 20...I could never do a Top 40 or 50, because there are never that many songs that I like.
|
|
iceman
2x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 2,213
|
Post by iceman on Jan 10, 2004 14:16:38 GMT -5
Someone on another message board has a top 150...or 200. I don't see how anyone can listen to or watch the music videos to all those songs within a week. Its easy if you don't have a life.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Jan 10, 2004 15:28:18 GMT -5
Top 40 and I'm not changing it because I don't like inconsistency.
I still don't think anyone can maintain an accurate Top 100 chart filled with songs they actually like. I don't like inconsistency either. That's why refering to my charts before 1999 is so tough because my chart used to be a Top 30 and before that a Top 20.
I'm able to maintain a good Top 100 though. I don't think it's completely accurate because the songs near the bottom of the chart are practically interchangable. I don't think anyone can really maintain an accurate chart outside of a Top 10 anyways. Anything below the Top 10 is pretty much a guess for the sake of having a chart. But most of the time, I'm familiar with the songs in my Top 100 enough to like them enough to chart them. :)
|
|
BlahBlahBlah
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 1,964
|
Post by BlahBlahBlah on Jan 10, 2004 17:07:22 GMT -5
I'm able to maintain a good Top 100 though. I don't think it's completely accurate because the songs near the bottom of the chart are practically interchangable. I don't think anyone can really maintain an accurate chart outside of a Top 10 anyways. Anything below the Top 10 is pretty much a guess for the sake of having a chart. But most of the time, I'm familiar with the songs in my Top 100 enough to like them enough to chart them. :) Well yours is more or less an exception to what I meant. Your chart actually has songs that've been on for a long time, which totally makes sense. What I was referring to are fast-moving Top 100 charts that have like 15 debuts a week.
|
|
Mega248
Diamond Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 12,333
|
Post by Mega248 on Jan 10, 2004 17:20:18 GMT -5
Mine was a top 40 to begin with, but I expanded it to a top 50 two or three months ago.
|
|
|
Post by Leafstorm on Jan 10, 2004 18:39:27 GMT -5
Top 20
|
|
jond7699
8x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 8,306
|
Post by jond7699 on Jan 10, 2004 22:07:01 GMT -5
I don't like inconsistency either. That's why refering to my charts before 1999 is so tough because my chart used to be a Top 30 and before that a Top 20.
I'm able to maintain a good Top 100 though. I don't think it's completely accurate because the songs near the bottom of the chart are practically interchangable. I don't think anyone can really maintain an accurate chart outside of a Top 10 anyways. Anything below the Top 10 is pretty much a guess for the sake of having a chart. But most of the time, I'm familiar with the songs in my Top 100 enough to like them enough to chart them. :) My top 40 chart is now totally airplay based. And it is erractic and inconsisent fully. So the more accurate you try to go the less it works it seems. I have often thought of doing a top 100. but of course there would have to be no recurrent rule what so ever. But it would be too hard to gauge and it would completely mess up my system. I have been doing a top 40 since I started charting music. But sometimes I don't think a top 40 is enough because alot of good songs get left out. Monica's Knock Knock and Missy's Pass That Dutch just to name two
|
|
|
Post by chartfanatic on Jan 11, 2004 1:27:20 GMT -5
This is the history of positions on my personal chart:
01.16.1999 to 10.27.2002 - 40 positions 08.03.2002 to 09.07.2002 - 75 positions 09.14.2002 to 10.26.2002 - 100 positions 11.02.2002 to 12.28.2002 - 50 positions 01.04.2003 to 04.26.2003 - 100 positions 05.03.2003 to 11.29.2003 - 200 positions 12.06.2003 to present - 100 positions
|
|
Radical347
2x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 2,251
|
Post by Radical347 on Jan 11, 2004 1:56:39 GMT -5
Top 40 and I'm not changing it because I don't like inconsistency.
Same here. I've done a Top 40 since the first week of 1999. At one time I thought of expanding it to a Top 50 because there were some songs that I liked that were falling off too quickly and other songs that hypothetically peaked right outside the Top 40, but I realized that I'd have the same problem at 50 as I would at 40. Also, it would screw up the point system. Keeping it at 40 makes it easier to compare a song's performances from year to year. (This is a major reason why I refuse to implement any sort of recurrent rules and hate that R&R keeps on changing them -- it screws up comparisons between years.)
|
|
j
4x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 4,975
|
Post by j on Jan 11, 2004 2:29:21 GMT -5
I think Top 5s have little to no credibility. Top 10s are for people who only listen to one small subset of one genre or something.
On the other hand, I think Top 100s serve little purpose because really, you probably don't care much for a song that ranks below your Top 50 songs for the week, so why would you bother keeping a record of it? I'm afraid I just don't see the point.
The main purpose I keep charts is so that years from now, I can look at it and think "Oh, that was what I loved back when I was 21!" I don't look back at my chart history to say "Oh! That song was one that I barely tolerated at #98 in May 2003!" or "Oh! I was neutral towards this song at #100 back in Jan 2004!"
Here's the history of my chart. Top 10: Nov 95 - Dec 96 Top 20: 1997 Top 40: 1998-
|
|
|
Post by af18c on Jan 11, 2004 13:00:17 GMT -5
I think Top 5s have little to no credibility. Top 10s are for people who only listen to one small subset of one genre or something. I agree. In order for a chart to have substance, it has to be at LEAST a top 20.
|
|
Joe1240
6x Platinum Member
Taylor Swift-The Best in Pop & Country Music!
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 6,953
|
Post by Joe1240 on Jan 11, 2004 13:29:59 GMT -5
Top 20
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Jan 11, 2004 14:04:40 GMT -5
Well yours is more or less an exception to what I meant. Your chart actually has songs that've been on for a long time, which totally makes sense. What I was referring to are fast-moving Top 100 charts that have like 15 debuts a week. Oh! LOL! Well, I do listen to a lot of different songs in the span of a week too. I occationally have 15 debuts but it's rare. Once a year! I usually have 5-10 and songs I mildly like will reach the 70s at most.
|
|
Gorminako
3x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 3,590
|
Post by Gorminako on Jan 11, 2004 14:08:13 GMT -5
Mine is a Top 80. I include songs on CD's not released as singles, and I let songs stay on for a long time if I like them enough, so it turns out to be about the right number for me.
|
|
crash46
7x Platinum Member
Inspired Mediasource
Ones who does not have Triforce can't go in.
Joined: November 2005
Posts: 7,224
|
Post by crash46 on Jan 12, 2004 0:56:04 GMT -5
Other: forty-six. I decided after about 6 weeks of making a weekly music chart that I wanted a little more than 40, and since everybody does a top 50, and the number 46 is part of my moniker on this forum, that's what I went with.
|
|
billme
Gold Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 834
|
Post by billme on Jan 13, 2004 10:07:32 GMT -5
I can see a chart of 250....not that I would create such a masterpiece. If you go through spin total on different R&R formats, this brings well over 500 songs. Each week, I have around 20-35 new songs that come to my doorstep. Each month, I have 25 DVD music videos, so there's plenty of music out there.
I have had charts between 40-105 (Top 80 with 25 extras). I peaked out with 105 songs (either the above mentioned or Top 80 songs+Top 10 Albums+Top 5 videos+Top 10 Oldies).
Today, it's Top 60 songs which leaves room for developing songs with no special charts or recurrents listings.
|
|